Advertisement

Adventures in Pet Food

Debbie Phillips-Donaldson, editor-in-chief of Petfood Industry, shares her insights and opinions on all things pet food, addressing market trends as well as news and developments in pet nutrition, food safety and other hot topics for the industry.

Petfood industry could learn from new study on GMO labeling mandates

As yet another US state considers mandating labeling of food
products with information on ingredients that have been
genetically modified (otherwise known as GMOs), a new paper looks at the
potential impact – positive and negative – of such mandates.

The latest state jumping into the GMO labeling debate is
Vermont. Its legislature recently passed a bill that would make it the first
state to require mandatory labeling of any foods containing ingredients that
had been “genetically engineered.” The governor is expected to soon sign it
into law.

Note that this bill – similar to ones previously passed in
Connecticut and Maine, in addition to ones introduced in California and other
states – specifically covers products for human consumption, not petfood. Yet
with previous state referendums on GMO labeling mandates being rather confusing
and unclear as to whether they included products for animal consumption, it
makes sense for our industry to pay attention to these new legislative initiatives.

After studying public opinion polls, consumer choice and interpretations
that support both sides of the debate, right-to-know issues, food safety and
testing, and legal and economic issues, the researchers concluded that there is
“no science-based reason to single out GE foods and feeds for mandatory
process-based labeling” and that such labeling would increase food costs in the
US. (If you don’t have time to read the entire paper, all the researchers’ conclusions
are summarized on page 2.)

Whether or not you agree with these conclusions, it’s
difficult to argue with the authors’ call for better communication on the subject: “Independent objective information on the scientific issues and the
possible legal and economic consequences of mandatory GE food labels needs to
be provided to legislators and consumers, especially in states with labeling
initiatives on the ballot, to help move the national discussion from one of
contentious claims to a more fact-based and informed dialog.”

Amen to that. Previous ballot referendums on mandatory GMO
labeling – one in Washington state last year and another in California in 2012
(different from the current legislative bill being considered in California) –
engendered large, expensive campaigns that only caused more confusion and
hysteria.

The state laws currently being considered or passed don’t
seem much better in terms of the debate surrounding them. For example, the
Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) deemed the new Vermont law “critically
flawed and bad for consumers,” while the Vermont Public Interest Research Group
called it a “model that rest of the country can look to moving forward,”
according to Food Safety News. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

GMA and other organizations, including petfood and feed
related ones like the Pet Food Institute and American Feed Industry
Association, believe federal legislation is a better solution. Perhaps they’re
right – but only if that effort is accompanied by much better, fact- and
science-based information and communication.

August 2017

The August 2017 issue of Petfood Industry explores how the top five pet food companies have faced legal challenges but still increased annual revenues since the last update of the Top Pet Food Companies database.